How can we better understand the way self-identity—shaped by personal beliefs and social influences—affects a person's independence, society's cohesion and the pressure on others to accept or adjust to these identities?

(Explain it like I'm five version) why should society feel obligated to accept those that construct their own identity?

I don't fully get it. Ok, that man cheated with a prostitute. I really don't see this issue here. She did get her money! I also didn't understand the Clinton issue? The have sex mutually as consenting adults while married. Those are personal issues. Why is someone's bedroom problems always in politics? Of all the illegal shit Trump has done, this should not be a focus. I'm not a fan of him at all but I also do not care about any man cheating on his wife. It's just not my problem. Is there a bedroom clause that I'm missing when you become president?

Trump's pardons

• Charles Kushner (family): Jared Kushner’s father, convicted of tax evasion, witness retaliation, and making false statements

• Roger Stone: Longtime Trump associate, convicted of obstruction, witness tampering, and false statements

• Paul Manafort: Former Trump campaign chair, guilty of tax fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy against the U.S.

• Michael Flynn: Former National Security Advisor, guilty of lying to the FBI about Russian contacts

• Stephen Bannon: Former White House adviser, charged with defrauding donors through the “We Build the Wall” campaign

• Elliott Broidy: Republican fundraiser, guilty of acting as an unregistered foreign agent

• Kenneth Kurson: Friend of Jared Kushner, charged with cyberstalking

• Chris Collins: Former congressman, convicted of securities fraud conspiracy

• Duncan Hunter: Former congressman, guilty of misusing campaign funds

• Rick Renzi: Ex-congressman, convicted of extortion, bribery, and money laundering

• Lil Wayne & Kodak Black: Rappers convicted on weapons charges; both publicly supported Trump

• Albert J. Pirro, Jr.: Convicted of tax fraud; ex-husband of Trump ally Jeanine Pirro

• Blackwater Contractors: Pardoned despite convictions for killing unarmed Iraqi civilians

• Clint Lorance: Convicted of second-degree murder for ordering soldiers to fire on unarmed Afghan civilians, killing two

• Mathew Golsteyn: Accused of killing a suspected Taliban bomb-maker, pardoned before trial

• Michael Milken: Convicted of securities fraud and financial crimes as the “junk bond king”

• Bernard Kerik: Guilty of tax fraud and lying to White House officials during a background check

• Randall “Duke” Cunningham: Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion for accepting over $2 million in bribes in a major congressional bribery scandal

• Robert Cannon Hayes: Lied to the FBI about a bribery scheme involving political donations

• Steve Stockman: Former GOP congressman; sentence commuted for misuse of charitable funds

• Rod Blagojevich: Ex-Illinois governor; sentence commuted for political corruption

• Dinesh D’Souza: Conservative author; pardoned for campaign finance violations

• Scooter Libby: Former Cheney aide; pardoned for perjury and obstruction

• Eddie Gallagher: Navy SEAL; pardoned of war crimes charges

• Conrad Black: Ex-newspaper publisher; pardoned for fraud and obstruction

• Sholam Weiss: 845-year sentence commuted for fraud and money laundering

• Joe Arpaio: Former Arizona sheriff; pardoned for criminal contempt​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I am looking for anyone who was directly negatively effected by Trump last term due to his policies. Please share some personal stories. I am looking for any legal citizens who were unlawfully deported.. loves ones who died because they had to go to a different state to get an abortion, etc. Please share your stories here.

As the comments section of every popular post makes it sound like he destroyed so many lives.. I am sure this thread will fill up very quickly.

Which will be worse for Democrats? Which will be worse for the USA?

Regardless of your political leanings or preferences in any possible future election, what are you working toward today?

Why do you say what you say?

Through most of my life (born in the 60s) the Democratic Party has been the advocate for a strong federal government while the GOP has pushed for state's rights and local accountability. In a world where the senate and electoral college give structural advantage to the GOP, why don't the Democrats reverse that position?

The blue states subsidize the red states anyway, and the red states are (mostly) dependent on the blue ones. Why not call the bluff and effectively defund as much of the federal government as possible -- eliminate the federal income tax, corporate taxes etc. effectively bankrupting the federal government.

The blue states, either individually or in consortia, could raise that money at the state level instead and continue to provide. The federal government would essentially become the home of entitlements and defense spending and nothing else.

In the short term, it would devastate poorer states but I suspect it would have a seismic shift in the attitude of red state citizens.

Caveat: I have no expertise and I am sure there are a multitude of reasons this doesn't work, but I am curious why.

Biden has given Ukrain ballistic missiles and permission to use them, which REQUIRES a member of US forces to enter the strike coordinates. This could EASILY eescalate into WWIII so Putin can stay in power. How if Trump a threat if Biden has handicapped him from the get go?

Not really a discussion, I know. Short of doing the math myself I am wondering if anybody has done it or seen it done. I’ve tried finding it but can’t.

If the data is true, under Trump about 1.8 million illegal immigrants came into US vs. around 8 million under Biden. The numbers for Biden administration are staggering, if true. So what was the Biden administration trying to accomplish by letting so many come into the country.

I’m specifically looking for a plausible political motivation. I assume the administration would not have allowed it had they not thought it beneficial in some way.

There are approximately 300,000 Europeans in the US illegally, plus tens of thousands Canadians. Will Trump go after these people? Will he separate families? Will he make them wait in Mexico? Will he get rid of anyone working at his various businesses who are here illegally? I guess we wait and see. I know of 6 men from France all in decent paying jobs who do not have visas. We will see. Will he or won't he?

I often find it difficult to cut through the political rhetoric we hear to get to the heart of many issues. When it comes to minimum wage, I've heard a lot of conflicting information from energizing the economy and reducing reliance on welfare programs to being inflationary and making it more difficult for small, independent businesses to compete. Of course recently my perception is that discussion about it has taken a back seat to other, more... intense debates. But perhaps that is also an opportunity for us to discuss it in a more nuanced way.

So, here are my questions for everyone:

What do you think the pros and cons of minimum wage laws are?

What circumstances do you think cause minimum wage laws to be more or less effective?

How do you think minimum wage laws can be designed to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives?

What alternatives to minimum wage laws do you think are worth discussing as well?

My hope is that we can have a constructive discussion about the subject.

In other words, did the Tea Party’s co-optation by wealthy elites mark the first signs of the mega-rich filling the power vacuum left by the collapse of the USSR?

With the USSR’s fall, the U.S. lost its defining ideological rival. The War on Terror offered a brilliant temporary mechanism for channeling government resources to the wealthy, but it lacked the longevity of a true adversary.

Then the Citizens United decision, unleashed unlimited money into U.S. politics. Instead of finding a new adversary, the ultra-wealthy instead started reshaping the political system to safeguard and expand their own interests.

The Tea Party began as a grassroots movement against taxes and government overreach, resonating with disillusioned Americans, especially after mark-to-market and the home-loan debacle. But its populist outrage made it an ideal vehicle for the ultra-rich to promote tax cuts, deregulation, and reduced government oversight. Imagine a modern and global version of the Roaring Twenties.

This transformation extends a disturbing trend: wealth consolidation and political capture. As corporate and financial interests increasingly dominate U.S. politics, power is concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy, undermining democratic ideals and utterly devastating the middle class.

The Tea Party’s rapid evolution highlights the growing influence of wealth as the primary driver of political change. This has raised questions about the future of democracy in the USA and its ability and even need to serve the broader population.

Are the mega-rich rewriting the rules of democracy itself, by turning the U.S. political system into a tool for wealth accumulation and preservation?

Efficiency, how is it measured for each agency? Is it simply how much money it spend regardless of the service? The easiest place to cut is the workers. If so, and the service falters, can people truly say that efficiency is reached?

How transparent are those numbers going to be?

Now the real question is, if we save $2 from getting rid of most of the workers but the service gets that much worse, who is going to be held accountable. Like will there be consequences to fucking up?

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $663,164 and above) paid the highest average income tax rate of 26.1 percent—seven times the rate faced by the bottom half of taxpayers.

My guess, they'll retool the ACA barely, claim some drastic change has been made, and call it trump care. They'll get rid of some vital part of it to make it cheaper and claim the part the get rid of was bloat and only needed in rare instances.

I know Trump has his core backers, but how many people voted for him because he was the alternative to Harris? I feel like he won the first election because people didn't want Clinton more than they wanted Trump.

Does anyone else feel American politics boils down to the "lesser evil" when we vote?

After a seemingly unconventional list of cabinet picks, I’m wondering if there are anymore picks I universally considered bad choices or some that liberals and Republicans both like and if there are some they both dislike.

Is Secretary of State even that much more prestigious? We know Trump is calling all the shots. Why do that for 4 years instead of serving another 20-30yrs in the Senate?

Of all of the things taxpayer money is spent on, or could be spent on, why would anyone oppose meals for kids? Particularly breakfast and lunch?

Democrats, what do you like/appreciate about republicans. Republicans, what do you like/appreciate about democrats? If you're going to make a backhanded compliment, please just don't comment.

I already approved a few posts, however we have a ton more in queue, I am creating this megathread as there is no real reason to have 10+ different posts on the topic.

In my view, both candidates are considered extremes in their parties and I was not excited for either candidate. I think both are wrong for America for various reasons. Was there any other moderate candidate the Democrats should've picked to sway moderate Republican voters? Did they pick Kamala simply because she was the VP? Was she the only option since Joe stepped down?

Was reading an article about Western African countries overthrowing their leaders and having a military ran government.

Looks like there’s Guinea, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso all led by military led governments at the moment

Was kind of curious what is life like in these structures? From a broad perspective it seems awful but has there been a solid military lead government?

Was just curious on if anyone has some input

A significant portion of full-time workers in the U.S. rely on federal assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP to make ends meet, despite working full-time. This raises concerns about the adequacy of low wages in today's economy. Should the government intervene by raising the federal minimum wage or expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to help reduce the financial burden on taxpayers and provide workers with better opportunities for financial independence? What are the long-term economic and social consequences of this ongoing issue?

In an era where political rhetoric is sharper than ever, I’ve been wondering: where’s the line between persuasive messaging and outright manipulation?

It feels like some political leaders and movements, across the spectrum, have gone beyond rallying support to something more troubling—cult-like tactics, emotional manipulation, and even hypnotic or brainwashing techniques to control narratives and solidify power.

Consider these phenomena:

• Rhetoric that isolates followers: Encouraging mistrust of “outsiders” or other groups to create an “us vs. them” mentality.
• Repetition of slogans: Simplistic messaging repeated endlessly until it feels like truth.
• Charismatic leaders: Who are never questioned, even when their actions or policies contradict previous statements.
• Weaponizing fear and loyalty: Making people feel like the only safe path is absolute allegiance to a cause, party, or leader.

At what point does this stop being "politics as usual" and turn into something more dangerous?

Some questions for you:

1. Do you think certain political figures or movements use cult-like tactics intentionally, or is it an organic byproduct of modern politics?
2. What should the limits of political persuasion be? Are there ethical boundaries politicians should never cross?
3. Can we regulate or safeguard against manipulation tactics like these, or is it just part of the game?
4. What responsibility do we, as citizens, have to recognize and resist these methods?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences. Whether you’ve seen this happening with political figures you support, oppose, or feel neutral about, this seems like an issue worth exploring together.

TL;DR: Politics often uses persuasive tactics, but where’s the line between persuasion and manipulation? Let’s talk about rhetoric, brainwashing, and cult-like behavior in modern politics.

There are a lot of labels that get thrown around and attached to political beliefs, but it doesn't seem like people actually know what their beliefs are, what they're rooted in, and what they're properly called.

The political Right is just as bad at this. I don't like that they throw around the term "liberal" as a sort of insult, when some of the beliefs that make up modern Conservative thought are actually rooted in Lockeian and Rousseauian Liberalism (the concept of a universal principle, for example).

So, Democrats. Where do your beliefs and ideas come from? What school of thought?